Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (169013)	6/7/2006 11:16:31 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793774

Interesting article, with many facts I did not know, but the general thrust is something I do think I knew. It seems to me that the article actually undercuts your argument. As the article makes clear, although mandatory chador, veil, burka, purdah, are not actually "mandatory" under a purist view of Islam, the mandatory nature of these customs predates Wahabbis, Al Quada and the Taliban. If the thrust of your argument is that extremist actions like disfiguring or killing a woman for showing something forbidden is something new, I don't think the article can be relied on for that. You may be correct, I don't know. I remember at the time the Shah of Iran was overthrown, one of my sisters was dating an Iranian man. She insisted, with great sincerity, that Iranian women liked to wear chador because it was more comfortable and men on the street wouldn't make sexual comments to them. Hard for a man to understand that many women loathe sexual advances and comments from strangers on the street, but it's true. At any rate, I didn't believe her. I didn't believe it was voluntary, I didn't believe it was comfortable during the summer. Her friend went back to Iran and was executed for belonging to the wrong political party, and that was the end of that.